Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 19, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PDT

3:00 am
the simple majority has the responsibility of -- has the ability to produce results. last year we had people running around asking for people to get there second and third votes. to me, that is not leadership. i want my city leaders, people coming to voters in saying this is my vision for this office. this is why i would ask for you to vote for me as opposed to running around asking people for their second and third votes. second of all, we talked a lot about this the last time around, the notion of voter confusion. poll after poll, voters will say they're confused by this. to me, i think there is no reason why we should have a voting system in san francisco where voters are confused. i think there is a lot of
3:01 am
anecdotal evidence for that. there is also a ton of empirical evidence in the form of over boats and san francisco. buster's mayor's race had 1% of the votes being tossed in the garbage can because of over votes. -- last year's mayor's race had 1% of the votes being tossed in a garbage can because of over boats. lastly, are run off system allows us, and i think we specifically solve this last year, the ability to have a hard look at candidates. last year i attended a number of the debates. there were 8-10 people on the debate. no real clear choice. people did not want to distinguish themselves from each other. people thought that was really a waste of time because she barely got to hear what people had to say. you got to-three minutes to speak. we want people with real choices to be able to articulate clear
3:02 am
visions and have voters understand them. in any case, this charter amendment applies to citywide races only. i realize there is healthy skepticism. there is help the opposition to this initiative. there is also healthy support. i appreciate all of that, but i appreciate that we have this meeting today. i appreciate my colleague summit today for the special meeting so we can put it forward to the board. with that, -- >supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell for his comments. i have a lot of respect for supervisor farrell, but on this one i will respectfully disagree. i sank of that the discussion is one where i think a lot of assumptions and allegations are
3:03 am
made about a specific voting system and the more you look into the specifics of what is alleged, the more you see the data in fact does not support some of the assumptions. noah voting system is perfect. ranked joyce boating hazards issues, but as has been demonstrated and the discussion we of had, not only here, but also at the local agency formation system, it has many benefits and the affordable but have been afforded to this have not materialized. in fact, the issue of voter turnout is one where you can see the benefits of rank choice boating, and when it comes to confusion, the data does not support the conclusion that rank
3:04 am
choice of voting is the worst system you can have. in fact, the level of competition is -- that is in some of the other races that is taking place in san francisco, whether it is the board of education or city college shows there is more confusion around those and a higher rate of error then there is with frank choice voting. no system is perfect, and the answer is to implement a system the best way possible, and the issue where i think word -- workmates to be done is on the issue of education. i do have a number of concerns about what is being proposed. i think the top two primary concept is one that creates its own set of problems.
3:05 am
in fact, if you look at some of love -- we got information from steven hill who has been doing great work around these issues for many years and has articulated and outlined the many problems that come with the top two primary systems. one of which is the turnout. you just saw an example in this past primary election in san francisco where you have among the lowest turnout we have had in quite some time, 30%. it is an issue that became more problematic for certain neighborhoods that were disproportionately impacted by that. i think the goal should be to have a system that maximizes boater involvement and voter turnout, and i think sad ring
3:06 am
choice of voting has been able to do that. i also think there are practical questions that arise in terms of the ability of the election department with limited resources to implement some of the things that are being proposed, and i think instead of talking about how we get rid of the system, that we should focus on how we make the system better, and i'd think focusing on that will give us better outcome, because i do think what is being proposed is even more susceptible to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against rank choice but boating, whether it is in terms of voter turnout, but actually the number of over boats that have happened and some of the top two primary elections shows the problems are there as well. i do not think replacing the
3:07 am
system with something that may have even more problems is the way to go. i will respectfully disagree with what has been proposed, and i would ask my colleagues to protect the system we have, and to the extent we make any changes, the change should be to making it better and enhancing voter outreach and voter turnout. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i think we have probably heard the comments of our colleagues on this issue, and i have certainly spoken my thoughts on brinrank voice boatichoice voti. i am highly supportive of the system we have now. i understand a lot of education has to occur for a voter to understand any new system, but i
3:08 am
believe when we look at most of the office races with supervisors and other city-wide races that what we of found is a system that i believe works and are able to generate one election with the vast majority turning out to vote for a number of different issues, whether it is about it -- ballot initiatives or a number of different offices. that has encouraged healthy dialogue and far more positive campaigning than what i have seen in the past. i think negative campaigning will always occur. to be able to determine whether there has been less or more, i think there has been far less, but of course as you hear the election date, that is one of the negative issues. from my perspective, i think without a runoff election, we limit it down to the last two weeks or last week of the election. certainly in my race the
3:09 am
negative campaigning did not begin until the weekend before the actual general election. what i have stated publicly at the last board meeting is i am open to the concept of us moving into a different type of system for the mayor's race. i stated that, because i want to be consistent that one of the principles i am looking at as we determine an election system is what generates the highest turnout. what generates the highest engagement in the democratic process, and with every board of supervisors race, what we've seen is a runoff there is far less turnout in the december elections been in the november election, but the one that race that differs is the mayor's race. we actually have increased turnout and the december runoff verses the election because of the status that is citywide, and i think the attention it
3:10 am
generates. i think voters are motivated to come out more than once to vote for this office. that is where i left myself open to dialogue. i certainly do not think that holds true for the city attorney public defender, sheriff, and district attorney races and would not support as having to elections for them. the other factor is cost. conducting multiple election cycles in the year. i think if we're not able to increase this, we should not run up more alexians the necessary to get in canada elected. this represents boaters desires in terms of food there would like to see an office. -- voter's desires in terms of who they would like to see in office. i do have questions on the september primary. i am curious to have the 65
3:11 am
percent signed never came forward, how that was formulated in terms of winning a primary out right verses what we currently have with the top two, or if we did an rcv. that is one question i did have, and i do not know if you want to move to public comment, and then have discussion about that, but those are some of the issues i wanted to bring forward today. >>supervisor farrell: i appreciate the comments. well-anticipated, but appreciate that as well. i want to welcome the people here for public comment. all of the rank choice of voting advocates. dice to see you again. we can open up the floor for public comment, i have a number of speaker cards. please line up on the other side. i will call in number of names. jones strasser, donimick paris,
3:12 am
erik brooks, and adirien. so first one, joan. please come up to the podium. we two minutes for everyone to speak on public comment. >> i would like to speak specifically to the comment you made about your discomfort about being no. 2. for me, it is a great relief to be at the number two, if i want to choose number-one who has a slight chance of winning. a member of the green party and generally hesitated to vote for green in the elections where i think they have a very small chance of winning for exactly the reason that they have a
3:13 am
small chance, and i would rather vote for the lesser of two evils. you are giving people a really fair chance to get their inner- most needs established, to book their conscious and the person they would like to have to increase the number one focus of someone they are not certain that will be very popular, and you also feel assured if they cannot have the person elected they would like to see elected, that they get to see someone elected that they would like to see an office. i feel opposite from the way you do. i hope you take that into account. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am happy to be here to not support ring tories voted.
3:14 am
i am not here to support your amendment. i am here to advocate for score boardivoting. you get to reach each of the candidates on a simple, arbitrary score of 0-4. you add up the sum total, and a person with the most votes wins. it is pretty simple. this is a list of organizations that are currently using score voting, although they do not advocate it. i am pleased to report, at the end of the month they will use core voting for the endorsement process. it has the benefits of both, but the detriment of either of the systems. it is extremely easy to understand. and there is precinct counting. like irv, it can be done without a runoff, but it can be done with the run of. those are different qualitative
3:15 am
decisions. it also has other additional benefits. for example, you could always vote your favorite, even under the most to check of instances, and the has less physical ballot space, which will cut down on costs of what you usually need, and it will only find the center of the constituent of the spectrum that your constituency is in. besides the qualitative reasonings, we also have quantitative ones. this was developed by princeton math ph.d., warren smith, but essentially like a golf score where lower is better. it measures how satisfied the voters are with the system. the best in storm runoff voting. i advocate to get in amend. think very much. >>hank you very much.
3:16 am
>> richard winger. i i hav i have been a poll worker for years. they work for very low money. there is a problem that these core of people will get exhausted, especially under the proposal in that gubernatorial years. we would have elections in june and september and november, and it is not just the poll workers, but a whole army of city employees who are out in the field helping them. i feel it is expensive and not worth the money. >> thank you very much. next speaker. take my name is jim lindsay.
3:17 am
thank you for doing this in the summer. when i heard about this, my gut reaction was a late april fool's joke or something. we will really have more elections? that is what we need? i tried to find out what the cost was. the lowest i have seen as 3.3 million. the highest number was 4.2 million. split the difference, because advocates always go high, and people always sort of fudged a little bit toward their side unintentionally, but that is what they do. i, to 3.7 5 million. that is my best guess to reality. -- i came out at 3.75 million. really? what happened at the end september primary? i would guess 25-30% of the
3:18 am
people will come out and vote, because it really does not mean anything and everyone will know that, except which people are going to be in the final, and i will vote because it is owed, but most people are not like that. i think it is a special election, and people do not show up to special alexian's very much. also, the main it campaign will be in san the negative. so that is just what is going to happen, and we all know that. it is also agreed to be very expensive. i was a fund-raiser for an election that when to run off, and there was almost a divorce. it is really hard on the people. it is really hard on the candidates to have the extra elections. we do not need it. let's keep what we have, make it better with the education. thank you.
3:19 am
>> good afternoon, supervisors. eric brooks representing the san francisco green party. just to pick up where the last speaker left off, this rink chosank choice voting measure, speaking in strong opposition. boaters are already hard-pressed enough to get the work done in gooand go out and spent another campaign. this is needed to protect social services and social justice and environmental justice. it is crucial for us to be able to vote for people. it was crucial for me in the first time to actually be able
3:20 am
to bring people i care about in an election. that was incredibly manpower and as a voter. the green party was not able to just indoors the green, but indoor supervisor kim and debra walker. that was profoundly important to the election. most importantly, this is important to democrats. i do not know how many of you get link tv. you probably saw dennis to spinackustinich speaking recent. he has decided to not run again in washington. and i think that is because of where the democratic party is headed. he is not empowered. the party is drifting power and farther away. -- further and further away. until we can get that to bubble up to the national level, the democratic party will keep drifting like that, and we will keep weakening and weakening.
3:21 am
we need to give these democrats real third-party choices of a good democrats can rise up in the ranks. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live in work in san francisco and have been a police inspector for several years. in this june's election california puts the famous system proposed by supervisor rod. a top to primary in which voters choose a top-10 canada. california has used this in more than 150 races. all of what was predicted from his proposal has come to pass in this election. for example, voting in ballots were rampant. congressional district 8, 13
3:22 am
candidates in the top two and one with only 15% of the total votes cast to each. this is far fewer candidates than in some san francisco races. similarly, in congressional district 31, the predominantly- latino districts, two white republicans advanced to november. the third-place canada, a latina democrat, was knocked out because the general electorate was older, whiter, and healthier. what good does add -- what good does add to do if they are not the right candidates? the right way to avoid this is to avoid rank choice boating in november, or an advance of more than just two candidates. thank you. >> let me also just say, if
3:23 am
anyone has not been called, please feel free to step up and get in line. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. our organization is strongly opposed to this measure. i want to put into the record this article but a feared in california watch. the headline is the county has missed the deadline to send about its overseas and military voters, and san francisco was one of those counties. this requires military and overseas be sent their ballots 45 days before the election appeared . i note that in 2015, the next
3:24 am
election for mayor, will only be seven weeks between your september primary in november runoff, and that will happen to out of every seven elections. in any given year when the assessor and public defender is elected, that will require the department of elections to send out separate ballots for the november election. one in plenty of time to satisfy the move act, and one for the city runoffs. i also know your measure and does -- and does consolidation, which is unfortunate, because your own doing cost saving for the city. i know the main concern seems to be with the major election, so why don't you want this to go to the mayor's election? given this is not until 2015, no reason to rush onto the ballot this november here did you have plenty of time to craft a measure that just applies to the mayoral election. and i will distribute copies of this.
3:25 am
>> thank you, supervisors. like his two predecessors, this will reduce the number of participating boaters. it will reduce the number of fully-participating voters. it will increase the number of exhausted boats, and it will elect winners with fewer votes from a less-representative group of voters. it is time to call the third strike on this misconceived effort. low turnout, september primaries are horrible idea. this would plummet into the teens. the flaws of this proposal run deeper. simple plurality primaries are not a fair way to narrow the field of candidates, regardless of origin -- of when the primaries are schedules, and regardless of whether they have pre-emptive victors. before the next mayoral
3:26 am
election, san francisco can upgrade the election equipment, giving voters simpler ballots, and removing the three-choice limit. that is the kind of real improvement san francisco deserves. san francisco's highest rates of exhausted boats and invalid votes are typically in the remaining traditional alexian's. -- not in traditional elections. these methods are so and, as for misrepresenting boaters and surprising diversity that peopl. -- suppressing diversity. finally, i would like to mention the need to start publishing tallies of preliminary results on election night. reporting only first choices is bad policy and undermines transparency and trust and confusing and misleading for the
3:27 am
public. second and third choices are already in the computer, and it takes the computer less than a month to tabulate. >> good afternoon. ♪ take me down to the paradise city where rules committee can count on the kiddie. please count it good. take me down to the paradise city where rules committee count on the boats in the kitty. please take me home and count them good. and ♪ you have to hold on the books you got. believe it or not, you got a lot. living on voting prepare. take my hand and you will count all that is there. in♪ ♪ take my hand, and you will
3:28 am
count all that is theire, living on voting power rayer ♪ >> i just want to come in and weigh in. i very much support runoff election-type voting. i think it is most instinctual, natural kind of election to have it. i know a lot of people bring up monday when they talk about this, but i also feel they are willing to spend money on a lot of things that i did not agree with. i think it is worse extra money that winds up being spent. i think it will increase voter participation. >> thank you very much.
3:29 am
>> steven hill. first of all, i want to clarify the record. i hate to cite your numbers, but you leave me no choice. you continue to get out erroneous numbers. you said poll after poll shows voters are confused. the only credible poll that we have that was done by a credible organization is san francisco state university showed 87 percent of sanford says go voters understand crank troy's boating. the other ones have been paid for by the chamber of commerce, and that is unknown opponent to bring tourists boating, so i think the polls are not credible. you also put out a figure that sit in the last election there
left
right